RE: [PHP] PHP vs ASP

I was just doing using ADO but the problem you mentioned with the 2 recordsets may have been the same for me. I am not sure may have to dig through my code archive and check it out. I think your right though the developer's capabilities can make or break a technology in a particlaur instance. I recenlt purcchased the book "Web Application Development in PHP4.0", and so far I am really impressed from skimming, there are some great new features in PHP, and everytime i think its ouwl be good to be able to "this" i searhc the manual an there it is the other PHP developer here says the same thing. Anyway, if the need ever arises to use ASP (ie based on existing custom COM objects and the fact that i havent come across any Windows/PHP hosting yet i am sure I will go back (most likely to ASP+/C#). But for now PHP does all i need and a whole lot more. Thanks for the interesting conversation, I am sure we will pass comments again on another topic. Cheers Steven ******************************* Steven Michael Holloway Web Programmer Port Douglas Internet Services Cairns Australia steven@pdis.com.au ******************************* -----Original Message----- From: Michael Kimsal [mailto:michael@tapinternet.com] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 1:17 AM To: Steven Holloway Subject: Re: [PHP] PHP vs ASP Dunno if it's bette or worse to do this offlist. I didn't mean to particularly come down hard on you, but I am curious about other people's experiences as well. Perhaps if it's doing the PDC stuff as well, that's a hit. But honestly, I can't say that your experience struck me as that normal. I've known very large scale ASP apps to run fairly decently on NT with 128 megs. No PDC stuff, but large scale (>150 users concurrent for hours on end) nonetheless. How many 'objects' were you using? ADO objects, third party objects, etc? The best running ASP apps I've seen use very little or none, except for the ADO database object, which I think generally explains the stability of those apps. Introducing loads of extra stuff is where I've seen things fail, or need 256 - 512 megs to be 'stable. Off topic a bit, but I had a VBScript app calling a stored procedure. The sp returned 2 record sets (my own fault). But VBScript accepted it just fine, except because I never explicitly destroyed the 2nd record set, it kept eating up memory, then slowing, then crashing. I actually never even accssed the 2nd record set - didn't even know I was doing it! It's this kind of funkiness that has contributed to my lack of faith in ASP stuff, even tho I am aware of people doing great things with it - it just seems to require a lot more - more support, more $, more time, etc. Anyway, interesting to hear from you - thanks for your clarifications. It does seem rather extreme that a 32 meg single proc 300 is light years faster than a dual 400 256 megs box, regardless of OS, and it goes against my own experiences. Nonetheless, it must be happening. It just adds more fuel to the open source fire, imo. Best of luck in your PHP endeavours. :) Steven Holloway wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I think may have confused the issue wiht my NT/Linux story. I'll recapand > explain > myself a bit better. First off its good to have these discussions its makes > us think more > about what we are doing. THe ASP apps stuff ran great once i got the Server > upgraded from > a K62-400 128mb to the dual celeron 366 256mb. But bothslckware boxes were > K62300 with 32mb > and were doing all kinds do other things like DNS, Samba, Squid as well as > Apache/MySQL/PHP . > The NT box was a PDC doing domain logins and some file services as well as > the IIS/ASP stuff > We had an extranet so clients could check hardware prices externally thats > had ligins for wholesale > customers. All of the data was serchable from one page or another depening > on the level of Access > Boss/Staff/Wholesale/Retail. Not very demanding application at all, and i > worked quite hard to make > sure it was regularly defragged and the that fileshae where taking up too > uch space etc. > The netwporkl was small only about 10 users. Customer page views were about > 30-40 a day > so a very small operation. > > NT just didnt seem to keep the pace unitl we uppped the server to gruntier > specs and when i > tested PHP with my first port iwas very impressed so ported th whole lot. > And it ran perfectly > without a hiccup. I guess i ahev been stabbed in the back by NT a few times > too many so i am biased > toward Unix stability, and in my experience speed. I have heard from a guy > who still works there they are > moving back to ASP (most likely due to his excellent VB knowledge). As far > as a tidy applcation goes > i was careful to close Db connections etc. so the application was not at > fault. > > In think moreover PHP is much nicer to code, and i like the greater > flexiblity you have within the one language > hosting is generally cheaper, and i guess have become a bit of a open > source anti-M$ zealot even though i do like > NT as workstation, and have found it quite stable and usable. fir servers i > happy with Linux or FreeBSD or Irix or > Solaris as I have apps running in all these. > > I was reading somthing the other day about MS bringing out ASP+ which does > sound like a major improvement > since they will make available the use of their new C# language. Not that i > kwno too much about it > but looka much nicer the VBscript :). > > Anyway I better leave it at that and get on with some code :) > > Thanks for the response > > Steven > > ******************************* > Steven Michael Holloway > Web Programmer > Port Douglas Internet Services > Cairns Australia > steven@pdis.com.au > ******************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Kimsal [mailto:michael@tapinternet.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:34 AM > To: Steven Holloway > Subject: Re: [PHP] PHP vs ASP > > I don't doubt the validity of your story, and I don't doubt this happens > to others. I've been in *similar* situations, but I've yet to > find an instance where 1 single 32 meg Linux box running PHP > *outperforms* an NT box with 256 megs (esp dual processor, and the > NT being *faster*). > > I am genuinely curious if everyone's NT/Linux experiences are THIS > extreme. Mine certainly haven't been, although our Linux > boxes tend to be up longer and behave more stably(?) than the > NT boxes. My definition of that includes strange performance > slumps on the NT box, followed by increased performance, then a levelling > off. > The Linux boxes tend to be more flat in their performance - flat on the > higher > side. > > What, may I ask, were you actually *doing* on the NT boxes in ASP > that was so resource intensive? The only times I've seen such > extremely poort behaviour was when the ASP/VBScript was being > used poorly (objects in session variables, not closing db connections, etc.) > The fact that the system LETS you do stupid things, then > performs poorly, is a topic for another discussion I think. But it wouldn't > be > impossible to code a poor-performing PHP site either, I'd think. > > I'm not trying to start a row here so much as get a better indication if > your experiences are the norm or not. I suspect, at least on this list, > they might be. > > Steven Holloway wrote: > > > I actually began using ASP since i learned to program with VB > > plus i knew some guys who doing ASP. Obnce i got the hang of building a > web > > application > > ASP seemed great. I built an Intranet/Extranet system for the Hardware > > dealer i was work for > > at the time and due to cost benefits used MySQL rather than SQL Server, > ADO > > has limitations when communicating to > > Databaes other than SQL Server or Access (sorry for swearing). > > We had 2 Slackware boxes K6300 32mb and 1 NT 4.0 Server K6400 128Mb. > > As the ASP apps grew in size and complexity IIS became very slow and > > increasingly less reliable. > > So we upgraded the NT box to dual Celeron 366 256MB and ATA66 Hard > drives. > > The ASP apps ran ok from then on. > > but NT still needed a reeboot about once a week, there was very little > load > > on the this box or the old one for that matter. > > > > A few weeks later our Linux guy showed me PHP (which i had heard of) > > i began to have play and found its quite easy to pick up. so i began to > port > > my ASP apps to PHP. this took about 2 weeks > > and they all ran on a single Slackware box with 32mb running > apache/PHP4beta > > and MySQL > > and the performace was so much better and it never fell over. Aside from > the > > problems with NT > > being slow and IIS unstable, i found PHP much faster to develop with. I > now > > work as a full time programmer > > doing mostly PHP/MySQL. Unix/PHP/MySQL is mre readily available and more > > cost effective than > > Windows/IIS/ASP hosting. > > > > Its typical for non technical people to make decisions about what > technology > > is used > > due marketing or "popularity" M$ has played this very well and I reckon > its > > been one of the keys to their success. > > > > I am sur eothers on the list can give you more technical ammo but this is > my > > story on ASP vs PHP > > not sure if it will help. > > > > Cheers > > ******************************* > > Steven Michael Holloway > > Web Programmer > > Port Douglas Internet Services > > Cairns Australia > > steven@pdis.com.au > > ******************************* > > ========================== > Michael Kimsal > http://www.tapinternet.com > PHP Training courses > http://www.tapinternet.com/php -- ========================== Michael Kimsal http://www.tapinternet.com PHP Training courses http://www.tapinternet.com/php